ORDER : S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 29.11.2024 passed in PCR.No.187/2022 by the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi, Ramanagara District. 2. Heard the petitioner - party in person and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. Petitioner herein has filed a private complaint in PCR.No.187/2022 before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi, Ramanagara District, against the respondents alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 109, 120B, 504, 506, 167, 203, 192, 211, 499 read with 34 IPC. 4. The gist of allegations made against the accused is, that accused no.1 had filed a false criminal case against the petitioner, and accused no.2 had colluded with accused no.1 and had filed a charge sheet in the said case against the petitioner and a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in CC.No.222/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506 IPC. Petitioner had filed a discharge application in the said case, which was allowed. Accused nos.3 to 5 along with accused no.1 allegedly had trespassed into the property of the petitioner and assaulted him. In respect of the said incident, petitioner appears to have filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police and FIR was registered in Crime No.152/2011 and the accused in the said case were charge- sheeted in CC.No.39/2012. Accused nos.6 to 12 are the persons who allegedly had give a false statement against the petitioner before the police, which had resulted in filing of charge sheet in CC.No.222/2012. According to the petitioner, though accused no.1 and accused nos.3 to 5 are the culprits, accused no.2 colluded with them and had registered a false criminal case against him and also had filed charge sheet in CC.No.222/2012. It is under these circumstances, private complaint was filed by the petitioner in PCR.No.187/2022. The Trial Court after recording the sworn statement of the petitioner, heard him and vide the impugned order, in exercise of its powers under Section 203 of Cr.PC, dismissed the private complaint. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 5. Petitioner - party in person having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that petitioner was wrongly charge-sheeted in CC.No.222/2012. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 5. Petitioner - party in person having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that petitioner was wrongly charge-sheeted in CC.No.222/2012. In the criminal case which was registered against accused no.1 and accused nos.3 to 5, petitioner was summoned to the police station and coerced to settle the matter. Since the petitioner did not oblige and heed to the request made by accused no.2, a false complaint was registered against him. The Trial Court having appreciated these aspects of the matter had discharged him in the said case. The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the matter and has erred in dismissing the private complaint. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that petitioner is in the habit of filing false complaints and he is a court bird. Petitioner also had filed a criminal complaint against accused no.1 and accused nos.3 to 5. Accused nos.1 & 3 to 5 herein were tried in CC.No.252/2011 based on the complaint given by the petitioner and were acquitted. The judgment and order of acquittal passed in CC.No.252/2011 has been upheld by this Court in Crl.A.No.1595/2021. Petitioner had earlier filed a similar complaint against accused no.1 and the Sub-Inspector of Police of Kudur Police Station. The said complaint in PCR.No.56/2019 was dismissed by the learned Magistrate and the order of dismissal passed in PCR.No.56/2019 was upheld by this Court in Crl.P.No.5184/2021 disposed of on 07.09.2022. Thereafter, the present complaint is filed against accused no.1 - B.Satish and others, suppressing the fact of filing the earlier complaint in PCR.No.56/2019. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that petitioner herein was discharged in CC.No.222/2012 taking into consideration that though FIR was initially registered against the petitioner and 7 to 8 other persons, charge sheet was filed only as against him, though the Investigation Officer had not recorded the further statement of the complainant/first informant. Therefore, there was no material as to why the other accused persons were not charge-sheeted. Further, the learned Magistrate had also taken into consideration that in the first information, the alleged presence of the eye-witnesses i.e., CWs-2 to 7 was at all mentioned, and therefore, it was apparent that the said eye-witnesses were planted eye- witnesses. Therefore, there was no material as to why the other accused persons were not charge-sheeted. Further, the learned Magistrate had also taken into consideration that in the first information, the alleged presence of the eye-witnesses i.e., CWs-2 to 7 was at all mentioned, and therefore, it was apparent that the said eye-witnesses were planted eye- witnesses. Further, the Trial Court had also taken into consideration that there were multiple litigations pending between the parties and it is under these circumstances, the petitioner was discharged in CC.No.222/2012. A specific observation was made in the said case that the investigation conducted in the said case was defective and sufficient material was not collected by the Investigation Officer to charge sheet the petitioner herein for the alleged offences in CC.No.222/2012. 8. Merely for the reason that the petitioner has been discharged in the said case, it cannot be said that he was maliciously prosecuted. The learned Magistrate while discharging the petitioner in the said case, has observed that the investigation conducted in the said case was not satisfactory and though the Investigation Officer had not collected sufficient material to charge sheet the petitioner for the alleged offences, the petitioner was charge-sheeted in the said case. 9. The material on record would go to show that after the petitioner was discharged in CC.No.222/2012, he had filed a private complaint in CC.No.56/2019 against accused no.1 - B.Satish and L.Srinivas - Sub-Inspector of Police, Kudur Police Station, Ramanagara District. The allegation in the said complaint is similar to the allegations found in the present private complaint. The said complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate and the order of dismissal passed in PCR.No.56/2019 has been confirmed by this Court in Crl.P.No.5184/2021. It is not in dispute that the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.5184/2021 disposed of on 07.09.2022 has attained finality. It is only after dismissal of Crl.P.No.5184/2021, petitioner has filed the present private complaint in PCR.No.187/2022 making similar allegations against the accused in the present case. The sum and substance of the allegations made by the petitioner in PCR.No.56/2019 as well as in PCR.No.187/2022 appears to be one and the same. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid, though the Trial Court has dismissed the private complaint vide the order impugned on a different reasoning, I am of the opinion that the order impugned does not call for interference. 11. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid, though the Trial Court has dismissed the private complaint vide the order impugned on a different reasoning, I am of the opinion that the order impugned does not call for interference. 11. In addition to the same, the punishment for the offence under Section 192 IPC is provided under Section 193 of IPC. The offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC is covered under the bar provided under Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.PC, and therefore, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC cannot be taken on the complaint of the petitioner. The complaint in respect of the other alleged offences in the present case, prima facie appears to be barred by limitation and is therefore hit by Section 468 of Cr.PC. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order impugned does not call for interference though the complaint has been dismissed by the Trial Court on a different reasoning. Accordingly, the following order: 12. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.